Today, I wish to announce the creation of an enterprise, the socio-political and economic scope of which has never before been attempted. My fellow investors and I will create a corporation, registered in the United States entitled, "The Capitalist Covenantry of Freeland" (the CCF), the purpose of which is to create a new country and, as the name suggests, it will be based on capitalism, individual freedom and the absence of coercion. (Read more...)Discuss this Article(19 messages)

The word "coventry" not spelled the same way you used it, Paul, but a combination of the two words you meant by it, was used by Robert A. Heinlein in Revolt in 2100. Although the society that he designed to be the Coventry was not exactly an Objectivist/Libertarian heaven.

With all due respect, I remain very skeptical of Trump as a possible benefactor for such a project. Consider just two actions over the course of his career:

When running for President of the United States, Trump advocated a single, lump-sum, "fire sale" tax on the net worth of the nation's wealthiest persons to pay the national debt. This betrays fascistic leanings and the desire to sacrifice the best to the worst.

Trump attempted to use eminent domain laws to expropriate an old woman's house for use as a private parking lot for one of his New Jersey casinos. The Institute for Justice fought Trump and won, thus allowing the woman to keep her house.

Eric: I have just finished the novel you referenced — Robert Heinlein's, Revolt in 2100, which I enjoyed. There were some parallels with Anthem in that our individualistic heroes escape authoritarian regimes, but the similarity ends there.

The usage of "Coventry" in Revolt in 2100 refers to the English expression, "to be sent to Coventry", that is, to be shunned, thus initiators of force were sent to the region by that name, in North America. Coventry was an anarchistic, violent hell hole. My usage of "covenant" merged with "country" is only semantically similar to "Coventry."

If others haven't read the book, initiators of force (our hero hit a guy on the nose) have to choose between the Two Alternatives — to be sent to Coventry or remain, but if they remain they must submit to psychological reprogramming to make them bland, compliant citizens — in my view the equivalent of a prefrontal lobotomy.

I would have replied to you on OWL, but I was banned from that list last November by the moderator Neil Goodell after an argument with him over the use of nested quoting rather than the essay style which he insists is the only way to prevent "chatting". Whereas I think that the nested quoting style developed by the Internet is a far better method of preventing evasion and keeping people scrupulously honest in their replies. I certainly sympathize with your frustration on OWL and among objectivists in general with their view that having governments is necessary.

I would like to have a discussion with you on a higher visibility "forum". Perhaps the newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism or you could suggest another.

Paul Hibbert wrote:

> Thank you all for being here. Today, I wish to announce the> creation of an enterprise, the socio-political and economic> scope of which has never before been attempted. My fellow> investors and I will create a corporation, registered in> the United States entitled, "The Capitalist > Covenantry of Freeland" (the CCF),

From a Canadian pov the use of the acronym CCF is unfortunate since it was the name of the highly socialist Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party which was the predecessor of the current New Democratic Party (NDP).

> the purpose of which is to create a > new country and, as the name suggests, it will be based on capitalism, > individual freedom and the absence of coercion. This will be > accomplished by buying an existing, democratic country, or portion > thereof.

If you don't buy the whole country, then your portion will still be under the political domination of what is left, except in the unlikely event that such a country allows secession (which none do AFAIK).

> The preliminary phase of the enterprise will consist of > identifying candidate countries, apprising the citizens of the pros and > cons and if the proposals are well received the citizens could normally > request a referendum on the sale.

Even if you get a vast majority of the current citizens to vote for your proposal to buy their country, how do you handle those property owners who do not wish to be bought? This problem is called the "bootstrapping problem" of contractarian formulation of a government. It is discussed in Randy Barnett's new book "Restoring the Lost Constitution" Chapter 1. Here is a critique of that book.

Precisely what is it you are buying if most of the land is already privately owned? At best you are only buying the common land which is currently owned by the government. If that is the case then you do not need any referendum. All that you need is to make a contract with the country's current rulers who effectively own that common land.

> My fellow investors and I have > committed $2 billion in seed money for this phase. Upon ratification of > the referendum, the feasibility being confirmed and the overall plan > being completed, we will be soliciting further investors for guarantees > so that the funds can be available for the actual purchase and > development of the territory.

Again when the territory is already inhabited, what is it exactly that you are buying? And what will you do about those who do not wish to sell either their own land or their part of the commonly owned land?

> First, let me tell you what the CCF will not be. It will not be a nation > in the conventional sense; it will not have a government. It will not > have a constitution, politicians or political parties. It will not have > embassies, trade legations, passports, citizenship, foreign aid, > membership in the United Nations, nor will it support Olympic teams. > There will be no laws to protect individuals from themselves. There will > be no social programs or welfare, no military and no draft. The > administration will not support schools or hospitals. There will be no > taxes of any kind and, most importantly — it will not be a democracy.> The words, "incentive", "subsidy", "advocacy", "special interest groups" > and so on will have no relevance in the administration of the CCF. There > will be no imposed licensing requirements for professionals or > businesses and there will be no building codes. There will be no mint or > mandated currency or legal tender. There will be no national holidays or > restrictions on when businesses may open their doors. There will be no > minimum wage or anti-discrimination laws. There will be no customs > duties or "most favored nations." There will be no common religion but > residents will be free to build churches and worship as they wish. > Marriage and sexual orientation will be no concern of the administration > as there will be no special provisions for couples — everyone will be > treated as an individual.

To a libertarian this may all sound great, but to the vast majority of the citizens of any country which you could possibly buy this would not be at all something that they would want and vote for.

> What the CCF will be is a geographical area, independent of any > over-arching authority, administered by the equivalent of a corporation.

That's great, but you have not shown how you can establish any such area without harming the interests (as perceived by them) of some people who are already there.

> The administration's self-interest is to maximize its profit, and in > order to do so, it must be able to attract the greatest number of > residents by providing a safe, free, non-coercive environment in which > they may pursue their legitimate individual goals, whatever they may be. > The administrators will provide a justice system and the basic > infrastructure of roads, airport, seaport (if applicable), and whatever > else is needed for other, subsidiary, entrepreneurial enterprises to > complete the development.

A major failing here is that all these services have monopoly status. Since CCF will have a monopoly on the legalized use of initiatory force (it will "provide" a justice system) it appears to be a government which is simply a kind of benevolent dictatorship. Personally, I would be hesitant to move to such a society. Far better to have a society where all such services are provided by several independent companies.

> The means of maintaining social and commercial > order and justice will be by contracts and covenants. Anyone may become > a resident or a visitor by merely arriving in the territory. Residents > will be able to trade freely among themselves or with individuals in > nations. Unions will not find a hospitable environment in the CCF > because individuals will be free to deal one-on-one with employers.> > The justice system will be broadly based on existing Western > jurisprudence, although there may need to be some major revisions.

That is an understatement from my pov.

> Because there will be no constitution, it cannot be the ultimate > reference. Hate crimes may not be prosecuted because people will not be > prosecuted for what they think — they will be prosecuted for what they > do. Anti-discrimination laws are not appropriate in a pure capitalist > system because it is not in the self-interest of capitalists to > discriminate on the basis of race. The justice system is an area where a > great deal of investigation must be done to be compatible with > capitalism and non-coercion. For instance, a jury by one's peers may not > be appropriate because it requires that residents be forced to be > impaneled. An alternative could be that lawyers hired by the > administration comprise a jury.

> In any case, residents will not be > attracted to the CCF if it is not perceived to be fair or does not > provide adequate protection.

The problem here is that what is "fair" varies enormously between individuals.

> The justice system will comprise a police > force (which may be contracted out), prosecuting attorneys hired by the > administration, private attorneys and custodial facilities owned by the > administration but which may be staffed by contractors.

Where does the funding for the administration come from? Ie. how does it make a profit from all this sufficient to provide the services (police force, prosecuting attorneys, jails, etc)?

I have omitted any comment on all your question and answers (except the one item below) because most of them are addressed to non-libertarians. Since your major audience here and elsewhere is libertarian, you would have been better to use questions which libertarians would more likely have asked. (Note that I include objectivists among libertarians.)

> All sorts of governments and social > organizations have been tried throughout the ages but what is needed is > a completely new paradigm

I totally agree that an entirely new paradigm is needed and that is what I have provided in my links referenced above.

> and I'm proposing a purely capitalist > approach that addresses all the problems of the past, such as coercion, > suppression of liberty and self-determination.

But I don't agree that capitalism alone will provide such a new paradigm.

> If there are any more questions that you or anyone else thinks of later > I'd be pleased to answer them. We'll be setting up a web site and an > on-line forum where all these issues can be discussed.

If this is done, where is it?

> > I hope you will all join me in this venture as I'm convinced we can make > an obscene amount of money and at the same time further the cause of > social progress.

You have not said anything about how such money will be made! Where is your business plan?

In summary, as I stated at the beginning, I am interested in discussion of the fundamentals of a non-government society which we both agree can exist and be much better than any society with a government. Perhaps we can get together to critique and understand each other's view, circulate and support those views more widely, and eventually get more people to join us.

Paul: From a Canadian pov the use of the acronym CCF is unfortunate since it was the name of the highly socialist Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party which was the predecessor of the current New Democratic Party (NDP).

Yes, I was aware of that at the time when I wrote it. I fled Canadian socialism 9 years ago after having been born there andliving there for 62 years. I discounted the similarity.

If you don't buy the whole country, then your portion will still be under the political domination of what is left, except in the unlikely event that such a country allows secession (which none do AFAIK).

I recall finding on another web site concerned with a new country that Costa Rica had a prospective area of it that was ripefor a partial buy-out. In any case, when the offer is made it is contingent on actually buying the area with no strings attachedand that they relinquish sovereignty.

Even if you get a vast majority of the current citizens to vote for your proposal to buy their country, how do you handle those property owners who do not wish to be bought? This problem is called the "bootstrapping problem" of contractarian formulation of a government. It is discussed in Randy Barnett's new book "Restoring the Lost Constitution" Chapter 1. Here is a critique of that book: http://selfsip.org/dialogues/barnett/rlc_intro.htmlI'll certainly look into that when I have more time. It is certainly the biggest drawback of democracy that the many candominate the rights of the few. I believe that if the majority would vote for the sale then the owners who didn't want to bebought out would just have to be bought out.

Precisely what is it you are buying if most of the land is already privately owned? At best you are only buying the common land which is currently owned by the government. If that is the case then you do not need any referendum. All that you need is to make a contract with the country's current rulers who effectively own that common land. Again when the territory is already inhabited, what is it exactly that you are buying? And what will you do about those who do not wish to sell either their own land or their part of the commonly owned land?

I propose that all the full purchase price be paid to the existing democratic government and I would suppose that they woulddistribute it equitably to the private owners. It would be unconstitutional for them to just sell out the country. In any case if itwere not a popular move there would be civil war.

That's great, but you have not shown how you can establish any such area without harming the interests (as perceived by them) of some people who are already there.

That's the evil of democracy again.

A major failing here is that all these services have monopoly status. Since CCF will have a monopoly on the legalized use of initiatory force (it will "provide" a justice system) it appears to be a government which is simply a kind of benevolent dictatorship. Personally, I would be hesitant to move to such a society. Far better to have a society where all such services are provided by several independent companies. I wouldn't want to move to such a country either, unless I was satisfied that my rights would be secure. It wouldn't initiate force. The legal system would only be used to prosecute those who initiated force. I find it difficult toimagine a country with several justice systems. You might be committing a crime in one place and be innocent if you did thesame thing five feet away.

> In any case, residents will not be > attracted to the CCF if it is not perceived to be fair or does not > provide adequate protection. The problem here is that what is "fair" varies enormously between individuals.

Exactly. And that is why the CCF would appeal to only a small percentage of the population of our western nations.Probably 95% would be appalled to consider going to a place that didn't give them cradle to the grave security. They wouldconsider this very unfair — but they don't have to go.

Where does the funding for the administration come from? Ie. how does it make a profit from all this sufficient to provide the services (police force, prosecuting attorneys, jails, etc)?

Perhaps I haven't been explicit enough. The total funding for the administration comes from contracts from a hierarchy of nextlower level developers. The highest level is of course the administration (justice and basic infrastructure connecting regions).The country would be divided into a number of competing areas which I would imagine to be creating the infrastructure forvillages or cities. Their revenue would come from the next lower level in the hierarchy which might comprise competingresidential, commercial and recreational areas and so on down the line until you get to the hot dog vendors. The revenue foreach level would come only from the next level below them.

But I don't agree that capitalism alone will provide such a new paradigm.

What's missing?

You have not said anything about how such money will be made! Where is your business plan?

The business plan is contingent of the feasibility study. It all depends on the amount of money available, where and how bigthe CCF will be, geological and topographical concerns, etc.

In summary, as I stated at the beginning, I am interested in discussion of the fundamentals of a non-government society which we both agree can exist and be much better than any society with a government. Perhaps we can get together to critique and understand each other's view, circulate and support those views more widely, and eventually get more people to join us.

>> If you don't buy the whole country, then your portion will still be>> under the political domination of what is left, except in the unlikely>> event that such a country allows secession (which none do AFAIK).>>> I recall finding on another web site concerned with a new country that > Costa Rica had a prospective area of it that was ripe> for a partial buy-out. In any case, when the offer is made it is > contingent on actually buying the area with no strings attached> and that they relinquish sovereignty.

And after CCF puts in a lot of capital to develop the territory, the original country will take it back again and kick CCF out. What is to prevent this any more than such past situations where large corporations have put in large sums of capital to develop industries or resources in undeveloped countries which then nationalize the completed projects?

>> Even if you get a vast majority of the current citizens to vote for your>> proposal to buy their country, how do you handle those property owners>> who do not wish to be bought? This problem is called the "bootstrapping>> problem" of contractarian formulation of a government. It is discussed>> in Randy Barnett's new book "Restoring the Lost Constitution" Chapter 1.>> Here is a critique of that book:>> http://selfsip.org/dialogues/barnett/rlc_intro.html>>> I'll certainly look into that when I have more time. It is certainly > the biggest drawback of democracy that the many can> dominate the rights of the few. I believe that if the majority would > vote for the sale then the owners who didn't want to be> bought out would just have to be bought out.

So CCF is just going to force those who do not wish to sell to do so anyway? Or is CCF going to insist that the rulers of the country that are selling the land do the dirty work and all that CCF has to do is to receive the expropriated (read stolen) property? This does not sound like a good way to engender trust and begin a libertarian country.

>>>> Precisely what is it you are buying if most of the land is already>> privately owned? At best you are only buying the common land which is>> currently owned by the government. If that is the case then you do not>> need any referendum. All that you need is to make a contract with the>> country's current rulers who effectively own that common land.>> Again when the territory is already inhabited, what is it exactly that>> you are buying? And what will you do about those who do not wish to sell>> either their own land or their part of the commonly owned land?>>> I propose that all the full purchase price be paid to the existing > democratic government and I would suppose that they would> distribute it equitably to the private owners.

I think you are doing far too much "proposing" and "supposing" without deep thought about the reality of the current world. There are very few nations on Earth that have both a democratic government and one which is in even close to being honest. More importantly there is no objective definition of what is "equitable". How can anyone except the person owning the property know what it is worth to him? What if he does not want to sell at *any* price? Then there simply is no equitable price at all. This is why expropriation is so fundamentally morally wrong.

> It would be > unconstitutional for them to just sell out the country.

What makes you think they have a constitution or one that has any effect on their actions? The US is the most constitutional nation on Earth, but that has not stopped it from ignoring most of what its own constitution says.

> In any case if it> were not a popular move there would be civil war.

If the tract of land were unpopulated enough and CCF offered enough, you might find a government somewhere which would remove all the current inhabitants and raze all the buildings to sell CCF a pristine tract of land to begin with. There would not be enough opposition for any civil war. I don't think you want this or any part of it.

However, even if 90% of the current inhabitants agreed to sell you their land, you still have the problem of the other 10%.

>> That's great, but you have not shown how you can establish any such area>> without harming the interests (as perceived by them) of some people who>> are already there.>>> That's the evil of democracy again.

Does that mean that you are accepting it? Are you washing your hands of these evils done by some others on your behalf? Isn't that equivalent to being a receiver of property which you *know* to have been stolen?

>>>> A major failing here is that all these services have monopoly status.>> Since CCF will have a monopoly on the legalized use of initiatory force>> (it will "provide" a justice system) it appears to be a government which>> is simply a kind of benevolent dictatorship. Personally, I would be>> hesitant to move to such a society. Far better to have a society where>> all such services are provided by several independent companies.>>> I wouldn't want to move to such a country either, unless I was > satisfied that my rights would be secure.

How would you know that they would be?

> It wouldn't initiate force. The legal system would only be used to> prosecute those who initiated force.

The same thing has been said in the past by all sorts of con-politicians *before* they got elected. How is this any different? What are the guarantees of performance? What are the incentives and disincentives which make your proposed system work and prevent abuses? How are the differences in individual evaluation of violational harms worked out?

> I find it difficult to imagine a country with several justice systems.

There are many good books which clearly show that this can work. You might begin with "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman and "The Market for Liberty" by Morris and Linda Tannehill

However, it is not necessary that there be several justice systems for there to still be fully individualized treatment of all violations. An example of such a system is given by the Natural Social Contract

> You might be committing a crime in one place and be innocent if> you did the same thing five feet away.

Potentially yes, but it would depend on who you were dealing with (all true "crimes" are events taking place between certain individuals) and on whose property the event was taking place. It is most important to start with the fundamental nature of real estate ownership and of the relationships between individuals. Only then can you begin to define what really should or should not be called a "crime".

>> > In any case, residents will not be>> > attracted to the CCF if it is not perceived to be fair or does not>> > provide adequate protection.

>> The problem here is that what is "fair" varies enormously between>> individuals.>>> Exactly. And that is why the CCF would appeal to only a small > percentage of the population of our western nations.> Probably 95% would be appalled to consider going to a place that > didn't give them cradle to the grave security. They would> consider this very unfair — but they don't have to go.

There is much more to the problems of "fair" and "adequate" than such a simple statement as you have made.

For one thing how can a system be "fair" and "adequate" to all when individual evaluation of those words varies so much from person to person?

>>>> Where does the funding for the administration come from? Ie. how does it>> make a profit from all this sufficient to provide the services (police>> force, prosecuting attorneys, jails, etc)?>>> Perhaps I haven't been explicit enough. The total funding for the > administration comes from contracts from a hierarchy of next> lower level developers. The highest level is of course the > administration (justice and basic infrastructure connecting regions).> The country would be divided into a number of competing areas which I > would imagine to be creating the infrastructure for> villages or cities. Their revenue would come from the next lower level > in the hierarchy which might comprise competing> residential, commercial and recreational areas and so on down the line > until you get to the hot dog vendors. The revenue for> each level would come only from the next level below them.

This sounds much like a large community like many which exist in the US right now. Entirely owned by a corporation and everything rented out to various types of businesses and residences. The only difference is that CCF would also provide the "government" type services as well (minimal of course). Again the problem is not that this cannot work, but what are the details of those services which make them so attractive to a wide variety of people and what will keep the providers from making them more oppressive once all the people and enterprises are established in their fully owned territory? IOW, why should I trust CCF?

>>>> But I don't agree that capitalism alone will provide such a new paradigm.>>> What's missing?

A mechanism for a trustworthy justice system. As I see it, CCF is equivalent to a benevolent dictatorship and that just won't cut it.

I have made some blunt statements and raised some major problems that I see with your proposal, because they are there in anything that you are going to be realistic about. An optimally working social order is a highly complex problem. If it were not, then it would have been discovered by someone and adopted by society long ago.

Paul: I'm sure that you're aware that Quebec has been on the verge of breaking away from the rest of Canada for decades. It came within a hair's breadth and it would have transpired with no civil disorder at all, with or without economic union.

Countries that have nationalized completed projects haven't relinquished sovereignty over the territory in question.

It's the nature of democracies that they routinely ride rough shod over the rights of up to 50% of the population. The rights of almost half of Quebec citizens would be violated if Quebec secedes but it would be legal. If you think that it's immoral when it's executed from an external source, why don't you think it's immoral when imposed internally? If you do, why aren't you attacking democracy (as I do)? They advocate democracy so they must abide by the consequences.

You talk about the "rulers" of a democratic country. They are the elected representatives of the population and are answerable to them.

You don't seem to understand that a capitalist management wouldn't do anything against what it perceived as its self-interest. Its self-interest would be to provide a justice system that prospective residents would be attracted to. Ideally there would be competition to the CCF#1 by CCF#2 or CCF#3, etc. run by other capitalists to provide even further choices for prospective residents. Variations could be based on the death penalty, abortion or any other issues might be contentious. But multiple criminal legal systems within a geographical area are unnecessary and would impose needless complexity. You seem to have a problem with what is "fair" in that the term means different things to different people. That's exactly why I want to allow people to be able choose under what system they want to live — so that their definition of "fair" meshes with the system.

You say: "what are the details of those services which make them so attractive to a wide variety of people and what will keep the providers from making them more oppressive once all the people and enterprises are established in their fully owned territory? IOW, why should I trust CCF?" You still haven't grasped the concept that capitalists don't do things that are against their self-interests. If they reneged on their covenants and contracts they would have no more revenue and they would go bankrupt.

You said: "An optimally working social order is a highly complex problem If it were not, then it would have been discovered by someone and adopted by society long ago." As far as I know I'm the first person to conceive the idea that a society can be marketed like any other commodity, product or service. You are using a variation of the invalid method of argumentation known as "appeal to authority". My proposal my have fatal flaws that might be pointed out by others but the above argument will have no part in it.

> Paul: I'm sure that you're aware that Quebec has been on the verge of > breaking away from the rest of Canada for decades. It came within a > hair's breadth and it would have transpired with no civil disorder at > all, with or without economic union.

I don't agree with this at all. Quebec wanted to leave *without* taking their portion of the national debt with them. If the majority in Quebec had voted for that, I have no doubt that the rest of Canada would have used armed force to prevent it happening. In addition, the population of Quebec would have been decimated by the mass exodus of most of the non-catholic non-native french speaking inhabitants. This already happened with respect to Montreal and businesses there many years ago.

I have no idea what you mean here. Those countries always had legal sovereignty over the projects. They simply now took over ownership and full control of those projects.

> It's the nature of democracies that they routinely ride rough shod over > the rights of up to 50% of the population.

Of course, but that does not mean that it is right for any government to do such a thing, nor right for anyone to accept the results and proceeds of such actions.

> The rights of almost half of > Quebec citizens would be violated if Quebec secedes but it would be > legal.

Who cares if an action is legal or not? I only care about whether it is *right*.

> If you think that it's immoral when it's executed from an > external source, why don't you think it's immoral when imposed > internally? If you do, why aren't you attacking democracy (as I do)?

Obviously, you have read *nothing* of what I have written. I have been 100% against democracy for over 30 years now.

> They advocate democracy so they must abide by the consequences.

I don't agree with that either. Many people unthinkingly advocate democracy in a very limited sphere, mainly because they do not know any better. That does not mean that such a person would or should agree to 99% of the population deciding that he should be put to death or all his property taken without recompense.

> > You talk about the "rulers" of a democratic country. They are the > elected representatives of the population and are answerable to them.

Not in today's democratic structures.

> > You don't seem to understand that a capitalist management wouldn't do > anything against what it perceived as its self-interest.

You don't seem to understand that one person's self-interest may be very different from that of another, even when both are completely rational.

> Its > self-interest would be to provide a justice system that prospective > residents would be attracted to.

Have you never heard of the expression "different strokes for different folks". There is no such animal as a justice system which has punishments and even restitutions which will satisfy all the people in its domain.

> Ideally there would be competition to > the CCF#1 by CCF#2 or CCF#3, etc. run by other capitalists to provide > even further choices for prospective residents. Variations could be > based on the death penalty, abortion or any other issues might be > contentious. But multiple criminal legal systems within a geographical > area are unnecessary and would impose needless complexity.

Please do some research on this.

> > You seem to have a problem with what is "fair" in that the term means > different things to different people. That's exactly why I want to allow > people to be able choose under what system they want to live? so that > their definition of "fair" meshes with the system.

Please quote my text and comment on specific passages instead of paraphrasing what *you* think I have said.

> You say: "what are the details of those services which make them so > attractive to a wide variety of people and what will keep the providers > from making them more oppressive once all the people and enterprises are > established in their fully owned territory? IOW, why should I trust > CCF?" You still haven't grasped the concept that capitalists don't do > things that are against their self-interests.

I have news for you. *NO ONE* does anything which they *think* is against their self interest. Capitalists are just as fallible as anyone else.

> If they reneged on their > covenants and contracts they would have no more revenue and they would > go bankrupt.

Your system is at this time pie in the sky without any practical detail on which to comment. However, from its starting premises of forcing people out of their property, I have no desire to hear any more.

> > You said: "An optimally working social order is a highly complex problem > If it were not, then it would have been discovered by someone and > adopted by society long ago." As far as I know I'm the first person to > conceive the idea that a society can be marketed like any other > commodity, product or service.

This again shows your ignorance. Many before you have proposed essentially the same thing and some are currently doing so. However, your proposal is far from having the details of what is needed for an optimal working social order. Other ideas have been much more complete.

Your proposals are not nearly as complete and sensible as either of:http://alexandisle.org/ (which has many major problems)and http://oceania.org/ (which had its own constitution all prepared, of which I have a copy) and there are many others

> You are using a variation of the invalid > method of argumentation known as "appeal to authority".

Not at all. I don't think that you even understand what that means.

> My proposal my > have fatal flaws that might be pointed out by others but the above > argument will have no part in it.>

Since you have not addressed the points of my previous posts in any direct fashion at all, I see little benefit to carrying on discourse with you. I had hoped to find some deeper thinking. As it is, this will be my last post on this thread.

Paul: Dealing with your convoluted logic leads me to agree that further discourse with you is not profitable.

First you have said that you don't know of any country that would allow secession and when I pointed out that Quebec has been on the verge of legally separating from the rest of Canada you lecture me on what might or might not happen. I sold my house in Ottawa in 1979 to a couple that were fleeing Montreal. The company the husband worked for was relocating in Ottawa. I dated a woman from Quebec City for several years. There have been several referenda in Quebec on separation and there isn't a Canadian alive that believes that if separation were to happen tomorrow that there would be military force involved, or any sort of civil unrest. The mass exodus you referred to took place long ago and the remaining "non-catholic non-native french (sic) speaking inhabitants" have adapted to the language laws and other restrictions imposed by the province. Btw, Quebec has its own immigration laws right now and they give preferential treatment to Francophone applicants.

You try to make a case that if a democratic state sold a part of it (i.e. relinquished sovereignty) to a capitalist that it would be taken over by that state. You cite unspecific cases where countries that have nationalized completed projects and pretend that you don't know the difference between the two cases.

.At least we agree that democracy is coercive but I would have no compunctions about entering into an agreement with a government that thinks the agreement is to its advantage. That's what free trade is all about — both parties profit. If they think they profit from it, then they do profit from it.

You state categorically that the elected representatives of a democratic country are not answerable to the population. That is patently not true.

You said: "You don't seem to understand that one person's self-interest may be very different from that of another, even when both are completely rational." Of course, that's why I want to allow unhappy citizens of traditional countries to be able to move somewhere else to a justice system that fits their self-interest.

Again, your logic is very difficult to follow: "I have news for you. *NO ONE* does anything which they *think* is against their self interest. Capitalists are just as fallible as anyone else." What is your train of thought here? If capitalists make a bad decision (that they thought was in their self-interest, but wasn't) then they suffer the economic consequences. Ever heard of the Edsel? If the CCF were to make errors in their implementation by misjudging the number of people who would be attracted then they would go broke. What's the matter with that?

Again, you say: "Many before you have proposed essentially the same thing and some are currently doing so." I would be indebted to you if you would provide me with the identity of those who have proposed that a society could be marketed like any other commodity, product or service — which is the central core of my proposal. This also implies that there would be absolutely no coercion..You state:"… it would have been discovered by someone and adopted by society long ago." The logical fallacy of "appealing to authority" refers to citing a prominent figure who has a different view to refute an argument. In your version you are stating that "someone" must have discovered it as, presumably, I couldn't possibly conceive of anything that hasn't already been discovered.The "prominent figure" in your version is the multitude of smart people who have preceded me. Sam Erica (aka Paul Hibbert)

If a government functions like a business, with all the voluntary exchange and none of the force that government usually has, then, on a larger scale, it may be possible to discover the best government structure on a free market!

How about this: after the CCF is founded, and is shown to lead to unparalleled technological and commercial prosperity, another entrepreneur (say, Bill Gates) might found another convenantry on a different territory, and create similar terms, but slightly different policies (say, he'd enforce marriage contracts, like Mr. Stolyarov wants, while the CCF would not). Then, those two covenantries, and any other contenders, would compete to get the most citizens and, thus, the greatest profits for the administration. The facts of reality will soon reveal which covenantry best serves the interests of its residents, and other covenantries, to maximize their own profits, might adapt accordingly.

Thanks, Charlie.I'm thinking that the name of the territory is too cumbersome, even though it is descriptive. "The Domain of the Free" commonly to be known as "FreeDom" has a better ring to it. Imagine, when asked where you live — your head will be high and your chest swelling when you reply, "I live in FreeDom".

Your proposal at least acknowledges that only one entity should have a monopoly on the use of force. But with a single provider of contract enforcement services, who would enforce the contract between citizen and police? In other words, what recourse would one have if the police service didn't honor its contract?

...who would enforce the contract between citizen and police? In other words, what recourse would one have if the police service didn't honor its contract?

There are four entities involved. The administration (the capitalist owners), the courts, the police and the citizens. The infrastructure of the courts would be owned by the administration and judges and prosecuting attorneys hired by them. Defense lawyers would be independent practitioners. The police would be contracted by the administration.

As with any product marketed to consumers — justice marketed to the citizens in this case — the vendors (the administration) must provide satisfaction to the residents or they will simply move away and/or immigrants will not appear, with negative consequence to their bottom line. Therefore, as in our current system, justice must appear to be done. Citizens would be able to sue the police and the administration would be able to terminate its contract with them and perhaps exact penalties, depending on the terms of the contract.

I don't have a big problem with the judicial system as it currently operates in Western democracies but I think that a system as I have described would operate better because political interference would be absent.

Well, it has been some 13 years since I wrote this and a lot has changed. Donald Trump has been joined by a number of other daring, innovative billionaires such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg but none are sufficiently motivated in this direction to bring this vision to fruition. I don't even know if they would approve of it.

I stand by my original premises but in light of the current terrorist threats I wouldn't approve of immigrants just walking across the border. Infidels are fair game for the radical Islamic terrorists, no matter where they live.

Interesting... Today's jihadi are just a new crop of criminals. I have been reading books on counter-insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. The authors are army guys, so they see it as a military problem of strategies and tactics and dynamic forces and all that. Looking at it from the viewpoint of criminology, "insurgents" are just a gang of right-violating troublemakers.

Libertarian lawyer Wolf Devoon asserts that people come to court specifically because their problem has some new feature, otherwise they would have settled their differences. I know that you only outlined the proposal. It was an essay, not a book. But the assumption that crimes are committed when evil-doers violate rights is only one kind of business that occupies courts. New precedents are the stuff of law. And, there is no way to filter out the "apes" from the "angels." You get enough people together and someone is going to get their toes stepped on without any evil intentions.